Damn! Your contribution was brillant in attitude, tone, brevity and insight. You need to have a talk show like your co-thinker Rush Limbaugh. See if you can get a guest host try out over at EIB. Bloggingheads is only the start.

Sara Haji said: "If Sarah Palin isn't a feminist, it's less because she's pro-life and more because she insists on speaking for a female population that, by and large, does not share her set of experiences. She does not summarily and categorically understand American women, in their diversity, simply because she is one."

Projection at its absolute finest.

AA said: "but I have a feeling that most people are, like me, bored by struggles over words when nothing happens as a result of somebody acquiring possession of the word, and nobody's going to get possession of the word anyway."

Stylistically she seems more like a Lawprof version of Terry Gross, w/ a little MoDo assumptiveness and self-certitude thrown in the mix.

Regarding POV, I'd wouldn't expect the Althouse Show to share the thinking of EIB Network. She'd be a non-crazy version of Beck, because she likes to connect things in unique ways. Rush usually relays whatever Drudge and Levin are pushing, but Rush does this with the style of a great improv entertainer that his sources (and Althouse) can't match.

"Palin speaks about a feminism that ultimately pertains only to a small cross-section of American women—women of a certain income, class, education, and race (and by extension, of certain opportunities)."

Translation.. that small cross section of low class hillbilly trailer park women who couldn't possibly have any coherent thoughts since they are too busy popping out babies and standing barefoot in the kitchen.

Certainly not as elevated, educated and erudite as she. /Sniff. The nasty unwashed masses of lower class women have no right to be feminists in her narrow mind.

Feminist like Haji make me ill and are the main reason that I will never claim to be a feminist.

In my book, my wife and Professor Althouse and Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman all get to be feminists. They got where they are at through their own hard work and initiative. Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi do not -- they got where they are at because they married rich husbands.T

I love the fact that she includes the destruction of Israel as part of her definition of feminism. As if Palestinian women were somehow better treated and were more empowered than Israeli women.

She should concentrate on her own religion and its problems with women first. Until the Muslim "feminists" have cleaned up their own house, I think that they should stay home cleaning and not try to burn down the houses of women who have done so.

I think some of the women in that article are right. The reason that Palin is so despised by real feminists is that she speaks for the middle class and working class women who do make the decision to have families in the traditional ways. and still can find happiness and success.

One of the feminist tenets is that women should have choices in their lives. But implicit in this is that they could chose a more traditional family role, and, yes, have more than 1.5 children. The assumption is that no real woman would want to make that choice. But, the reality is, of course, that millions of women do. And Sarah Palin makes them feel proud of that decision, instead of embarrassed.

The reality is that many, if not a majority, of women in this country do not really have the background, financial resources, interest, etc. to even be able to delay marriage, if not indefinitely, at least into their late twenties so that they can get professional degrees. And, while the "feminists" pretend to speak for these women, they really are only speaking for themselves.

And, yes, I agree with Ann, that women who gave Slick Willie a pass have a hard time claiming the mantle of feminism in speaking for other women, and, in particular, all the women in this country who are the subject of sexual harassment or assault.

Considering those who call themselves feminists have sold out a couple of generations of women to the Democrat Party and the Welfare State, I can't imagine why any, sane, intelligent, self-respecting woman would want to be called one.

That said, kudos, Madame, as several others have noted, for reminding the feminists what they were supposed to be.

I notice no one mentioned the "a feminist is someone who, despite all evidence, believes that American women are oppressed" definition.

More seriously... the first lady pointed out how far there was to go in some respects. I dispute her assumption of the most "rewarding" positions being denied women because "rewarding" is so subjective as to be meaningless. But the rest of it... I think that it probably is more than the fact that people make choices (even though that's the biggest thing) but also that feminists limit themselves by definition. They deliberately narrow their focus and what that means is they've marginalized *themselves*. If you've chosen to play in your own little ballpark, it's illegitimate to complain that the people playing in the big ballpark missed your turn at bat.

Which brings us to Sarah.

I couldn't read the second lady... OMGAWD. The first thing she wrote was "Sarah". "Sarah" defines her world far more than Sarah defines mine... and I'm a fan. So what does that mean about her?

I just about emitted an unladylike snort when she went on about how Sarah claims to speak for women who don't share her life experiences.

Srsly.

I'm sure that's the first time *that* has ever happened. If I don't snort something out my nose I'm going to sprain my eyeballs from rolling them.

But anyway, back to my point. The idea that Palin promotes repressive political policies is just another way of saying that she isn't playing on that special little ball field off to the side. She hasn't marginalized herself and her reach. She doesn't play by the girl-rules. Dislike her politics, lots of people do, but she is doing what any *man* would and could do. (Yeah, she's pretty. So are most male politicians.)

E.J. Graff's answer was the worn out standards, with the balancing inequalities for men conveniently left out like a balance sheet with no assets included.

Sara Haji's answer was incomprehensible to me. I'm not sure who's fault that is. I just couldn't follow any of it. It sounded like grad school lorem ipsum or a Ritmo comment, which is the same thing. Does that stuff really make sense to people. My stupidity on this front is wonderfully reassuring to me.

On the other hand, Althouse nailed it. Perfect, and an angle I had never considered. I knew I didn't care who gets to be a feminist, but now I know why I don't care.

Yea, does she realize what the purpose is of writing something? Maybe she does, and it's just everyone else who gets nothing out of her efforts. It's like she is trying to impress someone stupid, but I'm stupid and I'm not impressed.

After I thought about this a little more, I wondered who decides. Is there a Feminist Authority who decides this? Is there an admission exam? Who governs this organization, and assuming that it's a board of directrices, who gets to vote? Does it obey equal opportunity laws in employment? Does it sponsor any golf tournaments?

What would full equality look like—and what do we have to do to get there?

Well, for starters, it would look like when you walk into divorce court you would have a 50% chance of losing custody of your children and have to pay child support for the next 18 years, plus the possibility of alimony for the rest of your life.

To get there, you need to start taking responsibility for your choices. If you want to be a single mom, fine. Don't expect the rest of us to arrange your childcare. If you're taking maternity leave and sick days for your children and leaving the office right at 5:00 don't expect to make as much money or climb the ladder as quick as the guy who doesn't. There's a phrase for this sort of taking responsibility.

You are living in a dream world if you seriously believe that "everyone" " believes in the equality of the sexes". Seriously, this is not a majority view point even in the US, whatever people might ,i>say,/i>. Look at the evidence, look at how the economy functions. People say a lot of things, but I'd be very surprised if even a substantial majority say that they are feminist in outlook.

Truculence toward men is what defines feminism. In short, it's misandry reframed as policy. It's persecution of men disguised as a remedy for persecution of women.

It's Madonna (the old model) and Lady Gaga (the new model). When Lady Gaga kills the men in the cafe, using the feminist film as model, it's found its truest goal. The murder of men, as policy, and ultimate political goal.

I have a feeling that most people are, like me, bored by struggles over words when nothing happens as a result of somebody acquiring possession of the word, and nobody's going to get possession of the word anyway.

Except when it comes to the word "nigger" - it's yours, and those sympathetic to your point of view, to do with as you please. For it, you'll insist on making the meaning your simplistic plaything, no matter how many ways I, and those who share my point of view, choose to use it. My take: